February 21, 2018

CPAC wants nothing but distance between itself and Dinesh D’Souza.

Via Mediaite:

160 comments:

Curious George said...

The child survivors were coached about what to say, and we're all smiles and mugging to the cameras, so....

roesch/voltaire said...

He is part of the flake right that can not accept any honest response of outrage from these teens and so has to make up fake news, sick.

Chris of Rights said...

Interesting comments on the Mediate page.

Hagar said...

There is nothing honest about this "outrage," just election politics.

And it is very low to use the kids for this.

rhhardin said...

Since when can't you mock adults taking children seriously.

Darrell said...

Lefties gotta Lefty. The narrative is always the most important consideration.

Lexington Green said...

Leftists using children as props, demanding that everyone genuflect before their media gimmick. And of course conservatives fall for it, showing why they lost to tromp.

rhhardin said...

The conservatives are afraid of women, who they know will side with the children.

You've got to mock women.

rhhardin said...

If you side with the children, don't vote.

gspencer said...

CPAC is simply a GOPe variant.

Etienne said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
rhhardin said...

Who gave the graduation speech, widely reprinted, to college grads, "Nobody cares what you think."

Bob Boyd said...

Come on. Dinesh is a smart guy, but this is not smart, shockingly tone deaf, not helpful. WTF was he thinking? Was he drunk?

Leland said...

Ok, so I had to go a few clicks into the Internet to find Dinesh D'Souza's twitter comments. Yeah, one is bad. But lets be real about why D'Souza isn't invited. D'Souza supports the populism that helped Trump get elected. And CPAC #NeverTrumpers don't want that to continue.

Etienne said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bob Boyd said...

"D'Souza supports the populism that helped Trump get elected. And CPAC #NeverTrumpers don't want that to continue."

Be that as it may, ask yourself if D'Souza's comments meet Althouse's Better Than Nothing test.

Michael K said...

he flake right that can not accept any honest response of outrage from these teens and so has to make up fake news, sick.

You mean like the professional protestor who is seen in many of these photos ?

Henry said...

Time to claim his social media feed was hacked.

Michael K said...

Here is his photo.

His name is David Hogg.

Here he is defending himself with his FBI agent father.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

"CPAC is a Mitt Romney fan club, and a bunch of pussies."

Curious George said...

"roesch/voltaire said...
He is part of the flake right that can not accept any honest response of outrage from these teens and so has to make up fake news, sick."

Should I believe you or my lying eyes.

That little fuck was coached. And here are pics of the grieving students at fake news CBS:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/IMG_7392-426x600.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DWSgvwdWkAU08zm.jpg



the 4chan Guy who reads Althouse said...

For a supposedly smart man, D'Souza just did a stupefyingly stupid thing.

Did he think this was amusing? Who did he envision being amused?

I realize the answer to many will be: conservatives. Trump supporters, etc. etc.

Yes: there are assholes across the political spectrum, but this was a self-inflicted wound that ends up shooting a lot of people in the foot.

Trump Tweets generally bring out the opposition to show how ridiculous they can be.

D'Souza's Tweet shows only how easy it is for someone to show themselves as ridiculous.

The Magic that is Twitter: 140 characters for a person to encapsulate their worst self.

The Germans have a word for this.

mockturtle said...

The MSM still believe that, by controlling the narrative, they control opinion. And for a substantial number of gullible Americans, this is true.

Amadeus 48 said...

Well, here we have people who are shamelessly attempting to shape public opinion by using children as props getting their licks in when someone mocks their attempt at manipulation by mocking the props.

It is pretty ugly all around. D'Souza gets very low marks on my persuasion scale because the props are just props...they are being used. He needed to figure out a way to get at the manipulators.

As to this the manipulators, I get a creepy feeling when advocates use children to advance their point of view. "Vote for me. It's for the children..."

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Conspiracy that Florida shooting survivors are 'actors' easily debunked

by non-idiots.

Bob Boyd said...

"Should I believe you or my lying eyes."

Now this is an example of a helpful response. Great link.

the 4chan Guy who reads Althouse said...

Bob Boyd said...

"Be that as it may, ask yourself if D'Souza's comments meet Althouse's Better Than Nothing test."

Well put.

And, in the lexicon of Althouse: viewing this with Cruel Neutrality, what did he achieve?

Cruel Neutrality, combined with Occam's Razor, is a thresher.

The Germans have a word for this.

Curious George said...

"Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...
Conspiracy that Florida shooting survivors are 'actors' easily debunked

by non-idiots."

Strawman "actor" argument seen as a distraction from "coached" by non-idiots.

Chuck said...

I like Dinesh D'Souza.

And I don't recall Althouse, or her commentariat, wondering why Trump would do something so stupid as to use a single Tweet to baselessly bind together the notions that (a) the FBI messed up on warnings about the Parkland shooter and (b) the FBI was wasting too much of its time on investigating possible collusion between Russians and the Trump campaign.

Trump's tweet really was stupid, and baseless, and indefensible.

D'Souza's tweet was, by comparison to Trump's, funny and insightful.

Trump's tweet revealed nothing that was any sort of essential truth about the FBI.

D'Souza's tweet revealed something very true about our national dialogue involving these way-too media-savvy kids from Florida.

Kevin said...

Witness: Teacher Caught Telling Parkland Students to Attend Anti-Second Amendment Rally


Quotes:
Former NY police officer and Rebel Media reporter, John Cardillo attended the Parkland shooting memorial this week.

Cardillo said he witnessed media malpractice from CNN especially; CNN was shoving cameras in people’s faces who were mourning the hardest.

John Cardillo also said a teacher named Sarah Lerner was text messaging students on their personal cell phones encouraging them to attend an anti-gun rally in Coral Springs, FL hosted by ‘Every Town for Gun Safety’, a radical, left-wing organization funded by Michael Bloomberg.

Many students also told Cardillo that they are pro-second amendment, however; the media (CNN) is only focusing on gun control and students who are against the second amendment.

Students also said they wished the media would stop politicizing the tragedy.

Kevin said...


Parkland Survivor: Media Using Tragedy To Push Gun Control

http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/20/parkland-survivor-media-pushing-gun-control


Quotes:
Brandon Minoff, an 18-year-old survivor of the Florida school shooting, slammed the media for politicizing the aftermath of the deadly incident.

Minoff, who was previously interviewed by CNN and MSNBC, told Fox News Tuesday that too many media outlets are focusing on gun control rather than the 17 people who died in last Wednesday’s shooting.

“I wholeheartedly believe that the media is politicizing this tragedy,” Minoff said. “It seems that gun control laws is the major topic of conversation rather than focusing on the bigger issue of 17 innocent lives being taken at the hands of another human.”

“I know many people who are pro-gun and others who support gun control but it seems that the media is specifically targeting those in support of gun control to make it seem as if they are the majority, and the liberal news outlets are the ones that seem to make the bigger effort to speak to these people, and I’m talking from experience,” Minoff explained.

“And all day Thursday, CNN was interviewing gun experts and specialists to brainwash the audience that gun control is a necessity,” he told Fox. “They even have an army of my classmates trying to persuade other students that guns are unnecessary and should be illegal.”
--- End quote ---

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Curious George said...
Strawman "actor" argument seen as a distraction from "coached" by non-idiots.


The 'actor' argument came from the fever swamps, take it up with them.

Have you ever been interviewed for radio or TV? Of course you prepare what you are going to say. Only idiots use their few seconds of media time to bumble around trying to organize their thoughts.

Kevin said...


Photos: Student School Massacre Survivors and CBS Reporter party like rock stars


Quotes:
Shocking photos posted to Twitter of a CBS News reporter and students who survived last Wednesday’s high school massacre in Parkland, Florida that killed seventeen students and faculty, show the reporter and students laughing uproariously and posing for the photos like they are partying rock stars.
...
These photos were taken over the weekend on the set of an interview taped for broadcast Monday morning. This means the students were only three or four days out from surviving a massacre in their school. In just a few days they have become celebrated heroes of the anti-Trump resistance and are acting and being feted like rock stars.

Belle17 said...

Are people using these kids are political pawns? Sure.

However, the tweets were stupid and he should know better. It takes the focus off what his actual point was, which was that legislatures shouldn't make knee-jerk, reactionary, unconstitutional laws in the wake of horrific tragedies.

Michael K said...

Your link is not convincing ARM. Nobody said they were members of actors equity.

More like professional protestors.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Trump Joins Mar-a-Lago Disco Party After School Shooting

the 4chan Guy who reads Althouse said...

"Trump's tweet revealed nothing that was any sort of essential truth about the FBI.

D'Souza's tweet revealed something very true about our national dialogue involving these way-too media-savvy kids from Florida."

D'Souza's tweets were:

"Adults 1, kids 0."

"Worst news since their parents told them to get summer jobs."


What truth did those reveal?

I see no connection with those words and any critique of how children are used politically in our society.

The truth I see here is a commenter doubling down on stupid to score points against Trump.

Using the kids again in the process.

This is how you present your best incisive self in service of your political obsession?

D'Souza fucked up. Following him in his fuck-up: fucked up.

The Germans have a word for this.

Michael K said...

If anyone really wants to know howthis could have been prevented read this piece.

"We're not compromising school safety. We're really saving the lives of kids," boasted Michaelle Valbrun-Pope, executive director of Student Support Initiatives for Broward County Public Schools, in August 2017.

Valbrun-Pope was referring to what an article by Jeffrey Benzing in Public Source calls the "Broward County Solution." As Benzing relates, Broward County used to lead the state of Florida in sending students to the state's juvenile justice system. County leaders responded with a perfectly progressive solution: "lower arrests by not making arrests."

Authorities agreed to treat twelve different misdemeanor offenses as school-related issues, not criminal ones. The results impressed the people who initiated the program. Arrests dropped from more than a thousand in 2011-2012 to less than four hundred just four years later.


And

According to a source who spoke to the Miami Herald, Cruz had been suspended from Stoneman Douglas High for fighting and also for being caught with bullets in his backpack. This was apparently at least one of the reasons why administrators reportedly emailed a warning to teachers against allowing Cruz on the campus with a backpack. He was later expelled for reasons that have not been disclosed, but he was apparently not arrested.

He was able to buy that gun because the NCIS was never notified because the school district kept it secret.

Chuck said...

I did see something about the Parkland shooting tragedy that really moved me. It was the Fox News Channel's serial breaks over the weekend in which they did short reports focusing individually on each of the victims. They were simple, direct and amazingly effective at generating the rightful sense of loss.

The absolute least-convincing thing I saw, were the "activist" kids ranting about the NRA.

When I watched the FNC videos about each of the victim kids by themselves, I was overwhelmed with a feeling of genuine loss. When I watched the news interviews of the activist kids, I was overwhelmed with a feeling of what phoniness they represented.

the 4chan Guy who reads Althouse said...

I see a lot of comments regarding how the media is using the children for political motives.

I agree, and think it is worthy of discussion.

However, eliding from D'Souza's comments to this argument only makes such arguments look defensive, and poorly served.

Look at the commenter who uses it to bash Trump: he actually defends D'Souza's comments as " funny and insightful" (with a modifier to insulate against criticism, of course).

I do not in any way want to be construed as standing with that guy.

Because stupid can be contagious.

The Germans have a word for this.

Chuck said...

He was able to buy that gun because the NCIS was never notified because the school district kept it secret.

I don't know, but I'm happy to presume that you're right. If you are right, Michael, is it because FERPA forbids the school from disclosing anything?

Chuck said...

I do not in any way want to be construed as standing with that guy.

Because stupid can be contagious.

Amen. T-R-U-M-P.

Infinite Monkeys said...

The tweet was horrible, but if the "worst news since_____" was a Cards Against Humanity black card and you played "Their parents told them to get summer jobs" everyone would laugh and you would win the round.

Or maybe I just know horrible people.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

As some angry little guy once said: "Never let a serious crisis go to waste"

exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...



Blogger Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...
Conspiracy that Florida shooting survivors are 'actors' easily debunked

by non-idiots."

You mean by non-Russians. Those "conspiracy theorists" really are Russian bots - just like the ones who organized both pro and anti-Trump rallies after the election.

You don't see how the Russkies are playing both sides, do you? They're posing as extremists on the left and the right, achieving their goal of dividing Americans.

And gullible assholes like you just lap it up.

Curious George said...

"Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...
The 'actor' argument came from the fever swamps, take it up with them."

I feel no need to take up every issue on the internet. You reposted it, meaning you own it dumbass, so I'm taking it up with you.

"Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...Have you ever been interviewed for radio or TV? Of course you prepare what you are going to say. Only idiots use their few seconds of media time to bumble around trying to organize their thoughts."

First, yes, and no prep was needed. I was carjacked. I simply told what happened. Second, what a steaming pile. He is not a reporter. And you know why cops re-interview witnesses? Because they know the truth is easy to remember, but lies are not.

exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...

Yeah, I think leftists are exploiting these kids. You can point that out without mocking the pain and outrage the kids feel.

I like D'Souza, but that tweet was unwise.

M Jordan said...

I took one look at those five high schoolers on Chris Wallace’s show on Sunday and knew they were marionettes. They reminded me of that “No Labels” crowd led by David Frum a while back who claimed to want to step outside of partisan bickering as they ripped on every conservative idea that came down the pike.

Give me labels! Give me partisanship! Give me bots and troll farms! But don’t give me marionettes whose strings are clearly visible.

Michael K said...

If you are right, Michael, is it because FERPA forbids the school from disclosing anything?

The school is not supposed to release educational information.

Had he been referred to the police, that probably would have triggered NCIS.

If not, that might be a useful reform instead of trying to ban guns/

Bilwick said...

It would be difficult to imagine any effective pro-freedom writer or spokesman a "liberal" statist--or as I think of them, the New Tories--wouldn't consider "flakey." I'm sure the Old Tories considered Sam Adams and Tom Paine "flakes." Not to mention purveyors of "hate speech."

I was listening to some of the young protesters the Hive is currently using to promote gun control (oops, I meant "common sense gun control"), and I thought, "Now I see why they call it the Dumbest Generation."

Chuck said...

You know; I took a second look at the Althouse post, and I do have a criticism of D'Souza. It's a Twitter thing. I hate Twitter.

But I see what D'Souza did, for which offense could rightly be taken.

D'Souza did a re-tweet, of a tweet that pictured what I gather were ordinary grieving Parkland students. Not the tv-star "activists." Have I got that right? That is definitely a mistake on the part of D'Souza. His tweet should have been over a re-tweet of something about one of the media-star kids. And definitely not over a picture of some kids who have been no more than private citizens grieving in public and not engaging in political advocacy.


I hate Twitter.

Michael said...

Well, the children in question are from an affluent and white school and therefore possess the skills necessary to organize, overnight, nationwide protests, trips to the state Capitol, clever hashtags, all without missing a moment of grieving for their fallen classmates. White power, indeed.

the 4chan Guy who reads Althouse said...

"Amen. T-R-U-M-P."

You are choosing to stand with D'Souza so that you can bash Trump.

But Trump is the stupid one.

When you look in the mirror do you not realize it is reflective?

The Germans have a word for this.

Michael said...

I have a gun control proposition that should be tested in Chicago. Life in prison for possessing a firearm without a permit. No parole!

What do you think of that one, progs? You onboard?

Anonymous said...

M Jordan: Give me labels! Give me partisanship! Give me bots and troll farms! But don’t give me marionettes whose strings are clearly visible.

I like it. Marionettes vs. Trolls. The great propaganda war of our age.

Chuck said...

Michael K:

Hence, my personal jihad against all things "Title IX." (And embraced more or less by my heroine Betsy DeVos.)

It does little good, for a collegiate rapist to be expelled, or sent for re-education counseling. If a young man in college is an accused rapist, he should be in court with a lawyer and prosecutors and a judge and a jury of his peers. He should not be in an academic conference room with a panel of counselors.

And as the case is here; let's do more with criminal justice, and less with schools as social constructions that substitute for the law.

Title IX didn't seem to do any good at all in East Lansing with Dr. Larry Nassar. But the criminal justice system sure did get him. At the same time, F.I.R.E. reports on dozens of cases all across the country where young men have been falsely accused and/or disciplined for alleged sexual assaults, under Title IX star-chambers.

Lewis Wetzel said...

"Genuine grief I can empathize with. But grief organized for the cameras—politically-orchestrated grief—strikes me as phony & inauthentic." -D'Souza.
They should be mocked. The fact that their friends got killed in a school shooting doesn't give them authority.
The anti-gun forces make bad faith arguments, and the media, out of complicity or stupidity, repeat them.
I read anti-gun editorials in the major newspapers. Almost all of them call for "enhanced background checks" Apparently poll very well. Who could be against "enhanced background checks"?
I was curious about what an "enhanced background check" was, so I went to some anti-gun websites & checked their definition.
They aren't "enhanced background checks" at all. Instead they are new restrictions on gun ownership. The "enhanced background check" requires the owner to be 21 rather than 18, have a government approved reason for owning a gun (even a long gun), and must be renewed annually.
These children are being groomed and cynically used by people who hate about half of their fellow Americans.

Bob Boyd said...

"if the "worst news since_____" was a Cards Against Humanity black card..."

Maybe, but that's actually a good reason not to tweet the comment.

Chuck said...

The Germans Have A Word For That. said...
...
...
You are choosing to stand with D'Souza so that you can bash Trump.

Well, yeah. And as I re-reflected just above, I'm not so sure I really do stand with Dinesh.

But is a-n-y-b-o-d-y going to stand with Trump, on his Tweet making the equivalency that the FBI might have messed up an important life-saving inquiry into the Florida shooter, because the FBI was too preoccupied with a Russian investigation?

That is some world-class stupidity from Trump. World-class stupidity, and insensitivity. And yet Althouse never posted on it, and almost none of her commenters ever mentioned it.

SDaly said...

CPAC has for along time been a happy denizen of "The Swamp."

rhhardin said...

D'Souza composed the Washington Post march.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Seems to be some incredulity that these youths can put together more coherent arguments than most adults here. Guess what, it's not that hard.

Lewis Wetzel said...

What kind of politician do you want for your president, Chuck?
Ideologically pure, a paragon of virtue, a lawyer from an elite school? Honest & humble? Self sacrificing & respectful of his political opponents and American tradition?
Or will anyone not named "Donald J. Trump" do for you?

Lewis Wetzel said...

"Seems to be some incredulity that these youths can put together more coherent arguments than most adults here. Guess what, it's not that hard."
Which of their arguments do you find coherent, ARM?
I ask because most anti-gun arguments appeal to emotion, rather than reason, and many are made in bad faith.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Of course the youths favor gun control, they were just nearly killed by a gun nut. It is the only rational response. That they are able to frame that response effectively does not undermine their sincerity or good faith.

Lewis Wetzel said...

I'm going to do you a favor, ARM. I don't think you actually know what gun control arguments any of the Parkland youths are making. Here is a transcript of a speech one of them made that is getting quite a lot of attention: https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/17/us/florida-student-emma-gonzalez-speech/index.html
Please point out the arguments you find more coherent than the pro second amendments you have read in this thread.

Lewis Wetzel said...

"It is the only rational response."
Uh, no.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

Speaking of obvious liars and missed opportunities Chuck, what do you make of the superintendent who says he "never heard of" the 25 disciplinary actions against Cruz, including the several suspensions. I don't believe that for a second. School boards (and their Super) always are advised if not involved directly with suspensions and transfers that happen for disciplinary reasons. What is he covering up?

Is it the fact his district had a mission to reduce suspensions of any brown or black students because they were afraid of being called racists based on statistical bullshit> I think so. By virtue of his adopted last name, Cruz was treated like a "brown discipline" and handled with kid gloves. Progressivism kills in so many unintended ways.

Deep State Reformer said...

To see who rules over you note who you may not criticize or oppose without serious consequences. A good number of the killed & injured belong to a certain Semitic tribe who seeming have in their very DNA the ability to organize a serious response to anything or anyone who threatens them. That, plus a slew of media and political connections and major funding from fellow tribesmen. Parlayed correctly some could become paid full-time anti-gun media celebs.

Michael K said...

But is a-n-y-b-o-d-y going to stand with Trump, on his Tweet making the equivalency that the FBI might have messed up an important life-saving inquiry into the Florida shooter, because the FBI was too preoccupied with a Russian investigation?

Oh, I do and that is going to persist as a real thorn in the side of the FBI.

They got heavily involved in politics and neglected their real job. That will sell.

This may end up with the FBI losing their counter intel role. Send them back to bank robbery, which they know about.

This is not the only case they have dropped the ball on. There is a long list going back to Fort Hood.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

Seems to be some incredulity that these youths can put together more coherent arguments than most adults here.

Sure. Mouthing the same platitudes about the NRA and guns that every prog has said for most of my life. Really coherent ARM. And "out of the mouths of babes" makes it so important that we pay attention!

And Obama telling Putin to "cut it out" was a really strong and effective response to Russian meddling. And Hillary really did try so hard to comply with the subpoena for her emails. Let's take a warm bath in the lovely myths of the modern brain dead progs....

Lewis Wetzel said...

How do you get from "that kid should not have had a gun" to "no one should have a gun"?

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Lewis, I understand that you are emotionally attached to your toys and do not give a shit about the bigger picture. But these youths and their friends were victims of your solipsism, they have a right to be heard without being disparaged by false and frankly stupid attacks.

buwaya said...

Few ever care to argue the political, constitutional purpose of the Second Amendment, and its regulatory implementation. And those that so rarely do are Pro.
It is an uncomfortable, difficult subject, the right of revolt.

It seems to me that any other sort of argument is purely disingenuous, no matter what tragedy results. You can ascribe all sorts of damaging consequences to your other constitutional provisions after all.

Chuck said...

Michael, if anybody believes that the Russia investigation diverted resources from the Miami District Office of the FBI, they'd have to be both (1) ignorant of how the FBI distributes resources and work in 2018, AND (2) imbued with an incredible level of Trump-fandom.

Because the two things have nothing in fact to do with one another, and when you (rightly) talk about how it will "sell," you are talking about people who are basing judgments on emotion and fanaticism, and not on any detailed understanding of the facts.

So, I suppose, you may be partly right. Trump's tweet about the FBI just might "sell." It could "sell," to Trump's base of stupid, emotional fanatics.

Bilwick said...

I haven't seen any real coherent arguments among the Anti-Gun Jugend, ARM, just "Help us, Big Brother, help us!" emotionalizing in the form of the old "A attacking B gives C the right to attack D" baloney--"C" being "liberals" and "D" being peaceful gun-owners, i.e. the vast majority of gun-owners.

Just as an aside, I note that r/v derives half his nom-de-guerre from one of the great champions of freedom and reason; Toothless calls himself a "revolutionary" but is nothing more than a toady and enabler of Der Staat; while the guy who styles himself a reasonable man is a State cultist. In keeping with this spirit of false advertising, maybe I should start calling myself "Chairman Mao."

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

Of course the youths favor gun control, they were just nearly killed by a gun nut.

And more than a dozen of my friends and neighbors were gunned down by jihadis in San Bernardino in 2015, at a site I drive by every week. Killed by a self-declared shahid who effused about joining Al Queda before she ever immigrated here. Her social media were filled with "hate America" and "allahu akbar" before she entered our peaceful country. So why don't my arguments against that stupid policy sway you ARM? Is keeping jihadis out of America not a coherent enough argument for you?

Remind me what Obama did after the December attack to prevent future episodes. I mean besides leaving it off his list of attacks when he spoke about Islam.

buwaya said...

You could, for instance, probably stop the mass murder in Chicago by sweeping up the youthful male residents of certain neighborhoods and placing them in reasonably well-provided concentration camps. Finis. Crime gone. Massive reductions in public spending besides. And no economic loss. Lee Kwan Yew did something like this in Singapore.

But you have constitutional constraints against such measures.

Chuck said...

Lewis Wetzel said...
What kind of politician do you want for your president, Chuck?

Smart, articulate, inspiring, well-read, accomplished, moral. And conservative. That's a start, at least.

...Ideologically pure, a paragon of virtue, a lawyer from an elite school? Honest & humble? Self sacrificing & respectful of his political opponents and American tradition?
Or will anyone not named "Donald J. Trump" do for you?

Yes, to start.

But no, I would never settle for "anyone not named 'Donald J. Trump'." I wouldn't settle for another Clinton, and voted accordingly. I would not settle for practically any Democrat.

I would almost certainly settle for any other Republican -- and real Republican, that is -- over Trump.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

But is a-n-y-b-o-d-y going to stand with Trump, on his Tweet making the equivalency that the FBI might have messed up an important life-saving inquiry into the Florida shooter, because the FBI was too preoccupied with a Russian investigation?

You should have watched the Scandalous documentary last weekend, covering the Monica testimony phase of the Whitewater Investigation. Clinton's defenders were all over TV saying that the FBI would have prevented the two embassy bombings if the DOJ wasn't so tied up investigating Bill's sex life. Yes they made that exact argument.

So tell me again how uniquely stupid Trump is. You just don't like that he fights the Left with their own stupid arguments.

Lewis Wetzel said...

In her speech, Gonzalez praised the "gun control" measures put in place in Britain and Australia after shooting sprees in those countries. I put "gun control" in quotes because it was really gun confiscation. The simplified form of that argument is that if people don't have guns, they don't have guns. This isn't a coherent argument.
Gonzalez also seems to think the people who knew Cruz -- not the authorities -- should have taken his guns away from him.
Cruz was a violent psychopath with guns & this was reported to the police & other authorities many times. Grow up, kid. This is how the authorities act. It is not an outlier. This is government working as it usually works.
Just once -- once -- I would to see a journalist ask one of these anti-gun nuts to explain how what they are proposing would have stopped the massacre from happening or made it less deadly.

Ken B said...

Pundits seem to have to get more extreme and absurd over time to keep an audience. D Souza was once a sane if fringy guy.

Bilwick said...

By the way, one of the "coherent" arguments the young Hivesters seem to be making is that they have a "right" to "feel safe." Give that argument a minute of logical analysis, if you will. How does one have a "right" to feel safe? And how does your desire--not right--to feel safe confer upon you the right to impose your will by force on other people?

Chuck said...

SDaly said...
CPAC has for along time been a happy denizen of "The Swamp."

CPAC gave up its main stage to Steve Bannon once upon a time not so long ago...

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/02/23/cpac-steve-bannon-reince-preibus-entire-panel-sot.cnn

Aren't facts inconvenient damned things?

Michael K said...

So, I suppose, you may be partly right. Trump's tweet about the FBI just might "sell." It could "sell," to Trump's base of stupid, emotional fanatics.

Thank you.

You sounded almost reasonable for a moment.

Chuck said...

Mike said...
...

You should have watched the Scandalous documentary last weekend, covering the Monica testimony phase of the Whitewater Investigation. Clinton's defenders were all over TV saying that the FBI would have prevented the two embassy bombings if the DOJ wasn't so tied up investigating Bill's sex life. Yes they made that exact argument.

So tell me again how uniquely stupid Trump is. You just don't like that he fights the Left with their own stupid arguments.

I saw it! (Much of it -- I had to watch the golf tournament from Riviera, otherwise.)

I agree with you! Stupid hypocrisies, from the Democrats! Stupid arguments.

And you want me to like Trump, because he makes similar stupid arguments?

buwaya said...

Any manager can tell you that management attention is limited.
Running such an organization is a juggling of priorities. It is impossible even to keep up with knowing whats going on. The tiny pat of butter cannot be expected to cover the toast.

If the management are fixated on a certain class of problem other matters will most certainly slide, especially as underlings perceive what matters to their superiors.

Its entirely probable that the low-level function of law-enforcement coordination, of preventing "terrorism" (however misconceived) were not uppermost in the minds of FBI management for quite a ling time now. Those areas of toast got no butter.

Michael K said...

There is a possible measure that would likely stop most of these incidents.

It is not gun "control." From someone who knows:

When terrorists attacked a school in Maalot in 1974, Israel did not declare every school a gun-free zone. It passed a law mandating armed security in schools, provided weapons training to teachers and today runs frequent active shooter drills. There have been only two school shootings since then, and both have ended with teachers killing the terrorists.

It is an approach that the Americans should take to end the constant slaughter of innocents.


Israel has a worse problem but they had a lot restrictions on gun ownership until the school attacks convinced them they were wrong.

My point about the FBI failure is that they have had a series of such failures and this came just as there was about to be a huge scandal about FBI political meddling.

Robert Cook said...

"By the way, one of the 'coherent' arguments the young Hivesters seem to be making is that they have a "right" to "feel safe." Give that argument a minute of logical analysis, if you will. How does one have a "right" to feel safe? And how does your desire--not right--to feel safe confer upon you the right to impose your will by force on other people?"

People who believe these things are 4-year-olds in grown-up bodies.

Chuck said...

Mike said...
Speaking of obvious liars and missed opportunities Chuck, what do you make of the superintendent who says he "never heard of" the 25 disciplinary actions against Cruz, including the several suspensions. I don't believe that for a second. School boards (and their Super) always are advised if not involved directly with suspensions and transfers that happen for disciplinary reasons. What is he covering up?

Is it the fact his district had a mission to reduce suspensions of any brown or black students because they were afraid of being called racists based on statistical bullshit> I think so. By virtue of his adopted last name, Cruz was treated like a "brown discipline" and handled with kid gloves. Progressivism kills in so many unintended ways.

What you suggest might have a lot of truth. You won't get any hot countering arguments from me.

You seem to forget that I am a conservative Republican.

Lewis Wetzel said...

And you want me to like Trump, because he makes similar stupid arguments?
Personally, I don't want you to like Trump, Chuck. I didn't vote for Trump, either (I voted for Daryll Castle, Constitution Party). Much to my surprise Trump's political actions have been at least as conservative as Reagan's. Furthermore I doubt that any other GOP candidate could have beaten Hillary. I can respect that. If Trump had the temperament of a Bush or a Kasich he would have lost to Hillary, too. It's a crazy world, hold on tight, and look on the bright side.

Curious George said...

"Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...
Of course the youths favor gun control, they were just nearly killed by a gun nut. It is the only rational response. That they are able to frame that response effectively does not undermine their sincerity or good faith."

Now for the reality:

"Former NY police officer and Rebel Media reporter, John Cardillo attended the Parkland shooting memorial this week.
Cardillo said he witnessed media malpractice from CNN especially; CNN was shoving cameras in people’s faces who were mourning the hardest.
John Cardillo also said a teacher named Sarah Lerner was text messaging students on their personal cell phones encouraging them to attend an anti-gun rally in Coral Springs, FL hosted by ‘Every Town for Gun Safety’, a radical, left-wing organization funded by Michael Bloomberg.
Many students also told Cardillo that they are pro-second amendment, however; the media (CNN) is only focusing on gun control and students who are against the second amendment.
Students also said they wished the media would stop politicizing the tragedy."

Curious George said...

"Chuck said...
You seem to forget that I am a conservative Republican."

You're a GOPe cuck.

the 4chan Guy who reads Althouse said...

"...Trump's base of stupid, emotional fanatics."

As opposed to the people who emotionally kneejerk negatively about him. And stupidly side with stupid statements to score points.

Of course, I see you have backpedaled on your first comment. And -- of course -- it was Twitter's fault, not your possible misjudgment.

Perhaps it was an emotional reaction, maybe.

And regarding the FBI: I see a lot of their time being spent on political issues, but failure in their main responsibilities. I do not see that as a controversial observation.

But a squid spreads ink to obfuscate: it is what they do.

The Germans have a word for this.

buwaya said...

The qualities you cite, Chuck, are attractive, but they are not truly requirements for leadership. They are those of the courtier, seeking an appointment, but they have little bearing on actual performance, whatever they add in increasing the plausibility of rationalizations after the fact.

Its just a fact that "polish", on its own, does not make an effective executive.

Chuck said...

Michael K said...
...
...
My point about the FBI failure is that they have had a series of such failures and this came just as there was about to be a huge scandal about FBI political meddling.

Exactly. Michael K, your "point" is making the same fuzzy, blurry, poorly-defined, poorly-sourced, baseless, trashy point that Trump was trying to make in that Tweet of his over the weekend.

You're a Trump kind of guy, it seems. He can "sell" you, obviously.

Lewis Wetzel said...

Here is a coherent look at gun crime in the US:
-Mass shootings receive intense coverage in the media but account for a tiny percentage of US gun deaths & gun crimes.
-If you exclude a few inner city zip codes, most of the US has a gun crime rate similar to that of countries which ban or highly restrict gun ownership.
-The US constitution guarantees its citizens some form of legal firearm ownership for self defense.

mockturtle said...

Over 60% of gun deaths in the US are suicides.

Bob Boyd said...

"This is not the only case they have dropped the ball on. There is a long list going back to Fort Hood."

This needs to be investigated.
It seems a hell of a coincidence that the tips they dropped the ball on just happened to be actual shooters or bombers. Was the whole program just essentially worthless?

In light of what we have learned recently about how some in the FBI/DOJ have been operating, is it unreasonable to wonder if even this function has been politicized?

Chuck said...

buwaya said...
The qualities you cite, Chuck, are attractive, but they are not truly requirements for leadership. They are those of the courtier, seeking an appointment, but they have little bearing on actual performance, whatever they add in increasing the plausibility of rationalizations after the fact.

Its just a fact that "polish", on its own, does not make an effective executive.

Morality and honesty are just "polish"?

This is the United States of America. The rule of law; dating back to our English roots and the Magna Carta. Along with "Common Sense," the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers, the Constitution, Marbury v. Madison, and the Superior Court of New Jersey/Appellate Divison's ruling in Trump v. O'Brien.

We're not some "shithole country" where all you need to understand is a reading of Machiavelli in middle school.

And if you quote me as having said "shithole country," I'll deny it. I'll get Tom Cotton to back me up. LOL!

buwaya said...

And so it goes, the "nut" of the argument is avoided.
The agenda of the discussion is driven by the disingenuous, using emotion rather than reason. And they carefully limit the parameters of the issue within a pre-determined channel.

The entire business is hopelessly corrupt. You Americans can no longer even argue honestly.

buwaya said...

"Morality and honesty" are matters of perception.

Which are, or are not, relevant to being a leader of men, according to circumstances.

Was Robert Clive moral or honest? Was Arthur Wellesley? Was John Churchill? Was Hernan Cortez?

Most great men were great sinners. It is simply so.

Birkel said...

I demand as much honesty as Chuck.

We never should have lied to the Germans about where we intended to land our soldiers on D-Day.

How dare FDR!?!

Harumph!

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

Aaaaaaaand the shithole obsession returns! As if this private conversation, which was heard differently by different people I respect, was so freaking important to our nation. Literally no one cares which version is correct. Because it doesn't matter except to Captain Queeg of course. You're a tiresome pedantic man.

Birkel said...

Mike:
"You're a tiresome pedantic man."

Objection:
Assumes one fact not in evidence.

I Callahan said...

Conspiracy that Florida shooting survivors are 'actors' easily debunked

by non-idiots.


Did you read that article? NOWHERE in it was there a debunking of that "theory". Here is what was in the actual article:

Beyond the obvious fact that having once been to Southern California does not make someone an actor

Explain how that was a "debunking"?

I Callahan said...

Seems to be some incredulity that these youths can put together more coherent arguments than most adults here. Guess what, it's not that hard.

No, you just agree with them. Which makes you as much a skull full of mush as these kids are.

I Callahan said...

what do you make of the superintendent who says he "never heard of" the 25 disciplinary actions against Cruz, including the several suspensions

Probably the same superintendent who said David Hogg is a student there. Why should I believe this guy at all?

I Callahan said...

But these youths and their friends were victims of your solipsism, they have a right to be heard without being disparaged by false and frankly stupid attacks.

What abject stupidity.

There was no "solipsism." No one has a right "to be heard". And no one has a right to "not be disparaged." If what they're saying is stupid, other people, with REAL rights, have the right to call them out for saying stupid things.

Once again, because you agree with them, of course you'll take that tack.

buwaya said...

The filters to greatness are interesting, and significant.
Looking at the big picture it is clear that the system of selection, a societies cursus honorum, has an important effect on the development of leadership. There should be a good opportunity for an entire field of study on this subject.

The best-studied area in this regard is military leadership.

These can get boiled down to just-so stories, but there is so much here that it can't be ignored.

The classic cases, most written about, are from the 18th century and the Napoleonic wars. In these the negative case, the perpetual losers, are the Austrians, the House of Habsburg. They uniquely for the period evolved a highly ordered system of military preferment, emphasizing formal training in military science, and moreover being extraordinarily concerned with "morality" as it was seen at the time, the Habsburg court being very devoutly Catholic. More so than the Spanish Bourbons were.

The results on the field of battle did not prove out however. Austria stayed in the game out of sheer size and population, and came out of the whole mess intact through its excellent diplomacy.

The only truly outstanding Austrian generals were the unusual ones, outsiders or royal scions like Archduke Charles, the Emperors brother, who was moreover epileptic. One often finds that the whims of royal preferment produces excellent leaders, while the cursus hunorum creates adequate plodders.

One sees the clearest results of the faults of the Austrian system in the wars of the 1790s. The French first sent hordes of amateurs against the Austrian professionals, and were duly smashed. Within two years though the French produced a generation of piratical (exceedingly immoral) jumped-up ex-sergeants, ex-volunteers and the like, and the rest is history.

An excellent work, Duffy's "Instrument of War" (on the Austrians in the Seven Years War, but the bones of this system persisted for a remarkably long time)

I Callahan said...

Morality and honesty are just "polish"?

They're politicians, Chuck. Do you really expect this? Or only from Trump?

This is the United States of America. The rule of law; dating back to our English roots and the Magna Carta. Along with "Common Sense," the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers, the Constitution, Marbury v. Madison, and the Superior Court of New Jersey/Appellate Divison's ruling in Trump v. O'Brien.

I'm curious as to what any of this bullshit has to do with the topic at hand? Has Trump broken any laws by tweeting?

We're not some "shithole country" where all you need to understand is a reading of Machiavelli in middle school.

Not yet, but some parts are. And part of the blame is the milquetoast tendencies of LLR's like GWB, who allowed the left and the media to lambaste him for 8 straight years, all in the name of not acting a certain way. In other words, you and the rest of the GOPe types are losers, and sore ones at that. I myself am tired of losing, and refuse to ever vote for a limp dick Republican who's more concerned with being invited to the right parties.

Bilwick said...

So,Cookie, show me with your grown-up and obviously clear-thinking mind, how I'm wrong. Is there a "right" to feel safe? If so, how does that work? Does it impose some obligation on the rest of society?

buwaya said...

Leaders of "shithole" countries much more often need to be excellent at it, because they have no reliable systems and no great stock of cultural capital to lean on. Its much harder to drift, because the rocks are closer.

Chuck said...

Mike said...
Aaaaaaaand the shithole obsession returns! As if this private conversation, which was heard differently by different people I respect, was so freaking important to our nation. Literally no one cares which version is correct. Because it doesn't matter except to Captain Queeg of course. You're a tiresome pedantic man.

It matters because Trump lied about it.

And it's something that I like to repeat endlessly here, because it's such a delightful wedge with Althouse and her commenters who I learned long ago like to harass me.

Some folks like to say that what Trump said was a blunt, essential truth. And that it requires no apology.

But what Trump and the White House say, is that he didn't say it.

I really liked and respected Senator Cotton, and I really loathed Senator Durbin. But more than any of those prejudices, I like truth and accuracy. When Cotton can't admit the truth, that's a problem. Actually, when Dick Durbin is onto the truth, that also is a problem. So we need to deal with that problem. I just hate seeing Cotton get demeaned out of loyalty to Trump on a falsehood.

But back to this blog; I am a grinder on this issue, because I want to force everyone to pick a side, and a story. Either Trump said it, or he didn't.

Lewis Wetzel said...

Back to D'Souza: since when is it proper to condemn a middle aged man for mocking the moral reasoning of children? Having survived a murderous attack does not require any knowledge of what is moral or immoral. Someone should tell these kids to sit down and STFU.

Lewis Wetzel said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lewis Wetzel said...

It matters because Trump lied about it.
So you believe Durbin over Trump.
Hate is bad for the hater beause it twists his or her power to reason.

Michael said...

Chuck

President Trump did not lie about it. I believe he might have said shithouse countries or shitty countries or even crappy countries. But he says he did not say shithole. Durkin is the author of that phrase. We know for a fact that Durkin said it, no? But you can keep your doctor.

Birkel said...

Force me to choose about a conversation I didn't hear between people I assume have no honor, honesty or basic decency?

Hard pass, fopdoodle.

Chuck said...

Michael said...
Chuck

President Trump did not lie about it. I believe he might have said shithouse countries or shitty countries or even crappy countries. But he says he did not say shithole. Durkin is the author of that phrase. We know for a fact that Durkin said it, no? But you can keep your doctor.

Oh, fuck all of that. I think Trump said it. But one guy who can erase all doubt is Trump. (Well, Trump might be able to, if he had a good record for truthfulness, which he doesn't. Oh well.) Trump can say what he said. We can get everybody together on what Trump said.

What Trump said, and what Scott Adams credulously parrots, is that "strong language" was used. Baloney. I think Trump said "shithole countries." And I have no reason whatsoever to want to believe Dick Durbin. But Lindsey Graham basically confirmed it, and Tim Scott confirms that Graham said so, and Jeff Flake met with all of the Republicans in that meeting, and he says that they all confirmed it to him immediately after they left the meeting.

Poor Tom Cotton had to work at it, to settle on a story. He first said he didn't recall (riiiight), and then later said that "he didn't hear it." Didn't hear what? What did he hear?!?

Birkel said...

I hope a fopdoodle proves us all wrong and goes to live in a country that is definitely not a shithole just to prove how wrong Trump is.

I'm thinking Haiti. That would show us!

Gahrie said...

And it's something that I like to repeat endlessly here, because it's such a delightful wedge with Althouse and her commenters who I learned long ago like to harass me.

And us "harassing" you has nothing to do with you being an asshole and constantly repeating the same shit over and over again because you know it pisses us off.

Curious George said...

"Cuck: I am a grinder on this issue, because I want to force everyone to pick a side, and a story. Either Trump said it, or he didn't."

Or what? You start twisting titties?

Birkel said...

Curious George:
That's unfair. We all know this particular fopdoodle only threatens to twist the titties of women.

Are you a girl monkey? If so, watch out!

Lewis Wetzel said...

Chuck, you sound unhinged. I don't care if Trump called Haiti a shithole country. I don't care if trump lied about calling Haiti a shithole country. People that care about such things are crazy. Capiche?
I did get a kick out of CNN hunting down Haitians who would condemn on camera what Trump says he didn't say. That was funny. Many of these people risked their lives to get the Hell off Haiti. If you tried to send them back to Haiti they would run and hide or fight for their lives to go anywhere else but Haiti. Because Haiti accurately, but crudely, described as a shithole of a country.

Vimax Medan said...

OBAT VIAGRA ASLI USA
OBAT VIAGRA BALIKPAPAN
OBAT VIAGRA BANJARMASIN
OBAT VIAGRA BEKASI
OBAT VIAGRA CIKARANG
OBAT VIAGRA DENPASAR
OBAT VIAGRA DEPOK
OBAT VIAGRA JAKARTA
OBAT VIAGRA LOMBOK
OBAT VIAGRA MATARAM

Ken B said...

Chuck, you are now at the point of fulminating angrily that *Trump said something true*. You really need to take a deep breath. Which is really worse, an off the cuff truth about Haiti or public lie about attacks on an American embassy?

Gahrie said...

But back to this blog; I am a grinder on this issue, because I want to force everyone to pick a side, and a story. Either Trump said it, or he didn't.

What you fail to understand, is that apart from you and your Lefty pals...no one gives a shit.

Birkel said...

Gahrie,
I care because Chuck allowed me to start my quixotic effort to bring fopdoodle back from the literary graveyard.

the 4chan Guy who reads Althouse said...

"You seem to forget that I am a conservative Republican."

And Rachel Dolezal identifies as black.

Self-applied labels don't mean particularly much.

When I see 'conservative' I infer that to mean a person who puts the American people's interests first.

But a lot of Republican leaders seem to want open borders.

And if that is the conservative position then: fuck conservatives.

The Germans have a word for this.

theo said...

Chuck,

Your "grinding" gives you the appearance of being obsessed or perhaps deranged. You seem to truly believe that Trump is the devil incarnate and your rather long screeds remind me of the street preacher in a bad polyester suit.

"He lied to you sinners! Only I can show you the true way! Repent! Be like me!!!See the lies all around you before it is too late!"

No one here listens to your spittle flecked sermons but they do notice your crazy eyes and cheap suit.

Chuck you'd be more successful if you just went outdoors and shook your fist at the clouds.

Michael said...

Chuck wrote. "Oh, fuck all of that. I think Trump said it."
Well, there you go. LOL

MeatPopscicle1234 said...

CPAC has become a joke...

Jim at said...

He is part of the flake right that can not accept any honest response of outrage from these teens and so has to make up fake news, sick. r/v

Their responses aren't honest.
They're being coached. And used. By people like you.

Own it.

Lewis Wetzel said...

I like Chuck. He is honest and his opinions accurately reflect the views of a significant number of Americans -- most of them are Democrats. Chuck also expresses the views of a small & steadily shrinking number of #NeverTrumpers. The #NeverTrumpers seem to believe that they, and not the GOP ranke and file, define what the Republican party stands for.

Jim at said...

they have a right to be heard without being disparaged by false and frankly stupid attacks. - ARM

Bullshit. We have just as much right to criticize your precious, little mouthpieces as they have.

You don't get to own the conversation.

Gahrie said...

The #NeverTrumpers seem to believe that they, and not the GOP ranke and file, define what the Republican party stands for.

this.

I Callahan said...

I think Trump said it. But one guy who can erase all doubt is Trump.

So, guilty until proven innocent. And earlier you were waxing about what you expect in a president, as if there were any consistency in your beliefs.

Such a petty, petty man you are.

mikee said...

I loves me some ginned up political activism, especially when it espouses the same tired, debunked, defeated, Supreme-Court-rejected talking points I've heard since Heller vs DC, and even more when those lies and unconstitutional plans are mouthed by recently traumatized kids organized by a former CNN producer and other anti-gun groups to seem like grassroots opposition to constitutional rights, even before the blood on their dancing shoes is semi-dry.

But I won't say a cross word against the youths' protests, because while they want to remove from me and others an inherent, individual, inalienable human right to self defense because somebody else did something evil, illegal and violent, which I have never done, I wouldn't want anyone to think I'm being mean by saying their totalitarian instincts, while young, are incredibly well developed.

Chuck said...

Lewis Wetzel said...
I like Chuck. He is honest and his opinions accurately reflect the views of a significant number of Americans -- most of them are Democrats...

I opposed the Supreme Court's decisions in Lawrence, Windsor and Obergefell.

I am a huge fan of Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch. And the late Justice Scalia. I wanted Miguel Estrada on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.

I voted straight Republican tickets in most recent elections.

Before 2016 and the nomination of Trump, I was a RNLA volunteer.

I oppose any immigration reform that offers citizenship to illegals.

I believe wholeheartedly in the results of the McDonald and Heller cases on gun rights.

I ardently defend the rightness of the line of cases under Citizens United v. FEC and SpeechNow.org v. FEC.

I think that there is almost no basis to pass any state or federal legislation based on the presumptions of so-called climate science.

I'd like to see the general results of federal budgetary "sequestration" continued for the foreseeable future, with some modest exceptions for military spending.

I oppose state redistricting commissions, and I believe that current congressional district boundaries in red states are the result of great and admirable grass-roots political efforts, and should not be touched by federal courts. I hate the term "gerrymandering" as it is used in the 21st century.

I am, in other words, completely unlike any Democrat anywhere in the United States. I am in the center-right of the Republican Party, and well to the right of most Americans.

Chuck said...

Gahrie said...
"But back to this blog; I am a grinder on this issue, because I want to force everyone to pick a side, and a story. Either Trump said it, or he didn't."

What you fail to understand, is that apart from you and your Lefty pals...no one gives a shit.

I get that. Trumpkins don't care to discuss subjects on which there are no good answers to hard questions.

You care about what you like. I'll care about what I like.

I do think that there are some important voters -- swing voters who gave Trump his incredibly narrow 2016 electoral win -- who voted for Trump despite their massive discomfort over his Tweets, his other undisciplined statements and his outright lying. And I think that they "give a shit."

You, I don't care about.

Gahrie said...

I do think that there are some important voters -- swing voters who gave Trump his incredibly narrow 2016 electoral win -- who voted for Trump despite their massive discomfort over his Tweets, his other undisciplined statements and his outright lying. And I think that they "give a shit."

And apparently you would prefer them not to vote for Trump, and to vote for the Democrat instead.

Which is exactly what we would expect a lifelong Republican to do.

Bilwick said...

Robert Cook wrote, quoting me:

"'By the way, one of the 'coherent' arguments the young Hivesters seem to be making is that they have a "right" to "feel safe." Give that argument a minute of logical analysis, if you will. How does one have a "right" to feel safe? And how does your desire--not right--to feel safe confer upon you the right to impose your will by force on other people?"

"People who believe these things are 4-year-olds in grown-up bodies."

--wrote someone making the equivalent of the Poo-Poo Head argument, beloved by four year olds and "liberals" since time immemorial. to wit:

"You can't say A because if you say A it logically follows that--"

"Oh, yeah? Well, you're a big poo-head head."

I think D'Souza's comment may have been a tad off the mark; but he has every right (and not just a legal right) to make fun of Junior Statists parroting the party line given them by the Adult Statists. These kids aren't toddlers. They're old enough to be able to discern a logical argument from pure emotionalism. At least the Obama Youth Choir consisted on young boys and girls under the heel of Mom and Pop State-shtupper. My parents made me do a lot of stupid stuff I didn't like when I was a young kid, too.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

It matters because Trump lied about it.

That's your opinion. You don't know. You can't know because you weren't there. Trump says the quote Durbin (known liar) used was inaccurate. Cotton says he didn't hear what Durbin did. Graham swerved as usual and said it was something "like" Durbin's quote, which still doesn't make Trump a liar and in fact is consistent with Trump's account.

So I think your problem here is that you don't like that there is no consensus. You'd really like the scummy hateful Dick Durbin's story to be true, but you know he isn't reliable. Trump won't come out and clarify what exactly he did say (and why should he tell you what was said in a private meeting?). So you wish and hope and obfuscate, but you don't know and the not knowing has driven you quite insane over a meaningless episode. At least you're not alone. William Galston the WSJ is also insane, now declaring the people made a mistake electing this dangerous man who keeps tweeting stuff the GOPe doesn't like. So you have company.

pacwest said...

"I get that. Trumpkins don't care to discuss subjects on which there are no good answers to hard questions."

No Chuck, the hard questions are 'are we going to try to stop nuclear proliferation?', 'what would be optimum numbers for immigration', 'what about deficit spending', and even such mundane stuff like 'is a barrier at our southern border necessary'. These are hard questions with no easy answers. Whether or not President Trump said shithole in a private meeting is a triviality and you know it. Your comments consistently deal with meaningless horseshit. I'm beginning to think Drago has you pegged.

Chuck said...

No Chuck, the hard questions are 'are we going to try to stop nuclear proliferation?', 'what would be optimum numbers for immigration', 'what about deficit spending', and even such mundane stuff like 'is a barrier at our southern border necessary'. These are hard questions with no easy answers. Whether or not President Trump said shithole in a private meeting is a triviality and you know it. Your comments consistently deal with meaningless horseshit. I'm beginning to think Drago has you pegged.

I'm not minimizing any of those questions. I'm not proscribing any debates.

All I wanted to know, in the face of extremely credible claims that Trump called some nations "shithole countries," and with many Trump supporters saying that it was bold and brash and right and plainspoken for Trump to have used that kind of language, and then with White House communications staff fumbling around on what was said, they should all come clean and be exact about what was said. Be absolutely clear. Not some Trumpist euphemism about "strong language" or "tough talk." Truly "tough talk" would be Trump saying, "Yeah, I used the phrase 'shithole countries.' If you don't like it, that's too bad. I'm now going to take just a couple of minutes to explain what I meant and why I used that phrase..."

I don't want Trump and his supporters to have it both ways. To officially deny the story, but privately wink and nod and know that he really did say it, because we all know that he's right about some countries being shit holes.

bolivar di griz said...

So d'souza like general fLynn was targeted more for speaking truth to power, as with any real offense, his latest book notes the eugenicist view in progressive politics at their source point, Germany the home of economic statism and political hegemony.

bolivar di griz said...

For hegel (I'm relying on poppers critique, was a philosophy foreign to inalienable rights , and Marxism and fascism which arise from synducalism share similar misunserstandings

bolivar di griz said...

syndicalism, which is in itself a form of corporatism granted I think dnesh paints Andrew Jackson with a broad stroke, ignoring the context of 40 years of conflicts with the Indians.

pacwest said...

Chuck, I truly don't understand the importance of the shithole comment one way or the other. The culture has coarsened, and it isn't coming back. Mitt Romney is not the President. You work with what you got.

bolivar di griz said...


It was a petard thrown into the mix

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/02/mueller_worked_with_lerner_to_target_tea_party.html#ixzz57lhzhNdC&f

bolivar di griz said...

It might be reaching to consider d'souza a political prisoner, but I don't think so in light of recent events

Lewis Wetzel said...

All I wanted to know, in the face of extremely credible claims that Trump called some nations "shithole countries," and with many Trump supporters saying that it was bold and brash and right and plainspoken for Trump to have used that kind of language, and then with White House communications staff fumbling around on what was said, they should all come clean and be exact about what was said. Be absolutely clear. Not some Trumpist euphemism about "strong language" or "tough talk." Truly "tough talk" would be Trump saying, "Yeah, I used the phrase 'shithole countries.' If you don't like it, that's too bad. I'm now going to take just a couple of minutes to explain what I meant and why I used that phrase..."
Chuck, you are obsessing about a thing that normal people do not obsess about. You are like the fellow who has to brush his teeth thirty times each day. Is there anything wrong about brushing your teeth thirty times each day? No, not really, but its inordinate attention to something that should not receive inordinate attention. The problem isn't the tooth brushing, it's that you feel you have to brush your teeth thirty times each day. It's not about dental hygeine at all, it's about you.

bolivar di griz said...

Liberals make that argument, but I don't know how:

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/upclose/elhage.html

That was a full year before the embassy bombings.

D'souza in his first book on Obama described what made him tick, in the second what he would do.

bolivar di griz said...

Now the fellow who scouted put the target sites years before, was a fmr Egyptian special forces officer, who had been involved with the first world trade center, but then someone let him go.

Matt Sablan said...

My argument isn't the FBI diverted resources to investigate Trump. It is that the way that investigation is being handled shows that when the FBI wants they are thorough and review everything. 17 dead bodies make me wonder why the FBI considers relitigating years old investigations into Trump associates deserved more scrutiny than a guy with a violent history including elder and animal abuse promising to become a school shooter.

Matt Sablan said...

Remember, I'm fine with Flynn and Manafort paying if they did things that were illegal. But I wonder why every stone is being overturned on the basis of a shoddy dossier while the FBI is willing to roll dice on the abusive violent guy promising to kill kids. The FBI failed, and people involved in that failure need to face the music.

Matt Sablan said...

How will enhanced background checks help when a guy who abused people and animals, threatened to kill people, and committed violent vandalism appears to never have been documented with the police? If the shootersl's crimes had been properly handled, I believe he'd fail a current background check.

Chuck said...

pacwest said...
Chuck, I truly don't understand the importance of the shithole comment one way or the other. The culture has coarsened, and it isn't coming back. Mitt Romney is not the President. You work with what you got.

More times than I can hope to count, I have acknowledged and anticipated your view. You think that it was a basically okay thing to say. "The culture has coarsened," and this is where we are. You could have added, that it was blunt language, but true language. Or something like that. Whatever you think. I get it. I always got it.

It would be okay with me, if the White House position was, "It was tough language, yes, but not inappropriate in light of our coarsened culture. That language was needed, for the President to make his point."

But no! That isn't the White House position at all! They are denying that Trump said it! I presume it's because they feel some shame or remorse or regret for it and feel the need to deny it. Deny it, because the words are too toxic to admit. A denial -- even a false denial -- was the best way to manage the toxicity of the story.

Gahrie said...

Keep hunting for those strawberries Chuckles!